Imagine this. Every departing international passenger from the Philippines may soon have to shell out P3,050 for a round-trip journey, an amount that would surely put a hole in one’s pocket even before the trip begins.
That’s made up of P1,620 for travel tax, P950 for the terminal fee if flying out of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport and a looming P480 immigration fee – if this pushes through.
This will happen if the Bureau of Immigration (BI) proceeds with implementing a new border security system that would charge a user fee of P240 one-way per international passenger, totaling P480 for a round trip.
Traveling for work or leisure is almost always a good idea. One gets a break from the daily grind and from the dizzying and jaw-dropping real life teleserye that is Philippine politics.
But the added cost would surely be a major consideration, especially for budget travelers.
It is therefore a welcome development that BI Commissioner Joel Viado finally spoke about the additional cost the agency’s new project would entail.
He said that proponents of the so-called Civil Aviation and Immigration Security Services (CAISS) Project “must justify the proposed fee, technology, financial structure and other commercial terms.”
The CAISS Project is a major PPP aimed at modernizing the country’s border management infrastructure across 11 international airports, one major international seaport and six mobile border crossing stations.
The project proponent is US-headquartered Securiport LLC, which submitted an unsolicited proposal through the PPP Center of the Philippines in May 2023.
The Department of Justice, the designated approving body of the PPP Code, then approved the project on Dec. 2, 2025.
As more sectors raised concerns about the additional cost, Commissioner Viado said Securiport must justify the fee and other aspects of the project.
He said this following a budget hearing at the Senate when Senate finance committee chairman JV Ejercito asked him about the status of CAISS.
In a separate statement, Commissioner Viado said the government must also independently determine whether these are necessary, reasonable and in the public interest.
The BI, it seems, is finally listening to the backlash. Just recently, OFW organizations and migrant groups raised concerns about the project.
Commissioner Viado said that if the proposal does not adequately protect the interests of government and the public, “it can be revised, deferred or ultimately not pursued.”
I hope Commissioner Viado isn’t just saying this to appease concerned citizens.
A project of this kind, after all, really needs public consultation and a thorough review.
After all, no government agency should be shoving down mandatory additional costs on its citizens, and especially not for a service that it is mandated to do, and not in these economically challenging times.
Review
On its promised review, the BI must be transparent about it.
By law, the review should have been finished already because the BI already released several documents detailing the different stages of the process – from completeness check to detailed evaluation and all the way to the awarding.
Published documents already showed a specific timeline for the project and that the awarding was scheduled for November this year.
But just months ago, the BI said the project is still up for review.
Commissioner Viado reiterated this during the Senate hearing – that nothing is final yet.
In a statement after the Senate hearing, Commissioner Viado also said that any particular proposal must undergo government evaluation and demonstrate that it can deliver the required security and operational improvements under terms that protect government and the traveling public.
“Our objective is stronger and more modern border security. Whatever approach is ultimately adopted must be secure, reasonable and in the public interest,” Viado said.
But so far, the public has not been made aware of any review or results of any review.
Securiport and its partner
The BI also said it would consider the issues raised against Securiport.
Securiport’s experience in other jurisdictions forms part of the information considered in assessing its technical and operational qualifications, the BI said.
It committed to look into Securiport’s reported disputes, audit findings or performance issues involving projects in other jurisdictions that are relevant matters for due diligence.
These include issues raised in Gambia, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Benin about Securiport’s performance.
And while they’re at it, the BI should also be transparent about Securiport’s local partner, if it has one.
The BI’s documents do not identify any local partner, consortium member or local project company.
As such, the BI must disclose whether one exists, who owns it and who its beneficial owners are.
Actually, it’s a puzzle why only the BI is talking about this project and not the proponents.
A project that would be implemented nationwide, throughout our borders and one that involves having access to our critical data including biometrics and other sensitive information, needs some explanation from the proponent itself.
Perhaps Securiport can speak out and explain the project and why, in the first place, it would charge that amount in user fees.
As Commissioner Viado said, the proponent must justify the fee and other aspects of the project.
I, too, am curious to hear how Securiport can justify the P480 user fee per international passenger on a round-trip journey.
For many Filipinos, this would definitely be an additional burden.